This is my first debate ever, so hopefully Pat will take it easy on me. ;)

Justin assures me it will be up in three parts on Tuesday.

Pat Curley, along with James B, is the main contributor to the screw loose change blog, as you're no doubt aware. IMHO, such "debunkers" have no interest in truth, are most likely paid to attack the movement, and are thoroughly schooled in the fine art of obfuscation and spin. You obviously know your stuff, you have truth and reason on your side, so the debunking side has to be aggressive and resort to ridicule, along with straw men.

When the Loose Change trio first debated Mark Roberts on Hardfire, back in 2006, the host, a fellow debunker named Ron Wieck ("pomeroo" at JREF; interestingly, I've noticed he's been banned from there) did, consciously or not, let some truth about their agenda slip out when he introduced the viewing audience to Mark Roberts: "Mark has made it his mission to prove that everything Dylan Avery says is wrong." Not to seek the truth about 9/11. But to prove that everything Dylan says is wrong.

It all reminds me of the "debunkers" who surfaced after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 started something of a revolution. Most of Moore's facts were already on the record in such books as Craig Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud," but of course, the masses were not aware of that book. There was no smear campaign against Unger. But enter Michael Moore, stage right, and he has an impact on the masses. So, from stage left, entered the "debunkers" who put forth "FahrenHYPE 9/11."

These type of people LOVE to debate people with no/little debate experience. Not that I don't have faith you'll whoop his ass. ;-)

Jon, for doing this. I know you'll do fine.

The truth cannot be attacked - nor can searching for the truth.

Remember that the millions in the "9/11 Truth and Justice and Peace and Restoration of the Constitution and Accountability and You'd better take care of the Responders Movement" support you.

Good luck, Jon. Not that you will need any luck debating Pat Curley, but good luck anyway. :)

The questions seem favorable to the Truth Movement or anyone who calls for a new investigation.

1. Are there unanswered questions? Yes
2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation? No

This website is a good place to review the questions asked by the Family Steering Committee to the 9/11 Commission and whether they were adequately addressed or not.

Even investigative reporter, Peter Lance(a non-truther), has criticized that 9/11 Commission Report. He stated, "There’s no doubt in my mind that the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash. It’s well documented in Cover Up."

Why would Jon be expected to bring up Newton's third law when the topics of the debate are:

1. Are there unanswered questions?
2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation?

Eh?

crush-down-crush-up................. get with it man